Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow

A little under half (typically about 45%) of the dry weight of any plant is carbon, and almost all that “C” came from CO2 in the atmosphere. No wonder plants love more CO2.

Trees and bushes can grow out of cracks in rocks because they suck the carbon right out of the air. Likewise hydroponics is only possible because the building blocks come from liquid and aerial fertilizer.

CO2 is about the only “pollution” you can pump around plants and watch them grow faster, stronger, taller and indeed more resistant to most of the stresses that normally bother a plant.

Watch these plants grow

The team at CO2science grew seedlings for 42 days in chambers of 450ppm (high) and 1270 ppm (very high) CO2 concentrations. They document the growth of cowpea plants (Vigna unguiculata) via time-lapse photography, and show what most market gardeners know: more CO2 in the air makes for taller, stronger, faster growing plants. Indeed CO2 is one of the essential nutrients for plants, and is often the thing that limits their growth. Pretty much all the plants on earth grow faster when CO2 levels are higher.

In a cornfield the CO2 levels change in the air above the corn, starting at sunrise, as the plants wake up and start photosynthesizing, the levels of CO2 begin to fall in the air over the field. Within an hour the levels start to plummet–dropping 25% by morning tea time. Somewhere around 200ppm the plants slow down and struggle to grow.

Those who say it is “pollution” aren’t into helping plants.

The ingredient plants need most is carbon from CO2. They typically exchange over 2,000 water molecules to grab one CO2 molecule. Plants are desperate for carbon from the air, just like we humans are desperate for oxygen from the air. “No CO2″, implies no plant growth. One of the main roles of water in plant life is just so the plant can exchange it for carbon.

Green the deserts?

When there is more CO2 in the air, the plants don’t need as much water. They become more drought resistant. From the CO2Science Biospheric Summary:

One of the important ramifications of this CO2-induced increase in plant water use efficiency is the fact that it enables plants to grow and reproduce in areas that were previously too dry for them. With consequent increases in ground cover in these regions, the adverse effects of wind- and water-induced soil erosion are also reduced. Hence, there is a tendency for desertification to be reversed and for vast tracts of previously unproductive land to become supportive of more abundant animal life, both above- and below-ground, in what could appropriately be called a “greening of the earth.”

The mass of plant matter in the world today is about 6% higher than it was 20 years ago, according to satellites. The deforestation in South America and South Asia is about matched by reforestation in North America, Russia and Europe, and extra CO2 is making for more biomass per square meter

Due to today’s higher CO2 levels, plants on average grow 15% faster than they did 200 years ago (and some major cereals grow 40% faster). Higher CO2 levels are a major part of the green revolution, averting starvation for hundreds of millions of thinking, breathing, human beings.

If the Greens wanted to green the world, the single fastest way to do it, is to raise carbon dioxide levels. O’ the irony.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 7.9/10 (16 votes cast)

Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow, 7.9 out of 10 based on 16 ratings

98 comments to Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow

Such heavy science. Dextrose, sucrose, maltose, lactose, glucose and other forms of “carbs” are turned by animals into amino acids or protein.
You can buy CO2 generators for a greenhouse to hasten plant growth. Cow peas?

Peas, beans and alfalfa take Nitrogen out of the air and deposit it in the root system.

Maybe I ought to file a brief with the United Nations, or the World Court, or The Hague…

…on behalf of plant life worldwide. Maybe the plants can finally utilize that new “Ecocide” clause and protest the discrimination against coal-fired power plants. After all, limiting CO2 is tantamount to botanicide.

This is a joke. Coal mining is the single most dangerous resource to mine on this earth, and the proprietors of coal do not care what so ever. More people die extracting this dirty stuff than petroleum, nuclear, wind, solar, and geo-thermal energy mining combined. No matter what you say, burning fossil fuels is not good for sustaining a livable environment. I love how people see how plants clean up our mess and think: “why don’t we make a bigger mess? plants need co2 right?” No, being a functional member of your ecosystem is how life is sustained. Period. You can’t use energy the way we do today. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. They will and are being depleted too rapidly. And if we want to even be able to paint a car or put tires on it in the future we have to save some of it. Coal is the same way, it’s used for a lot more than just energy and when we have no more of it a lot of industries other than power will suffer.
There is no such thing as clean coal. Natural gas poisons the earth and breaks important foundations. Clean coal technology is almost as far as nuclear fusion. Use your mind not your bosses’.

Sure Marsh. You must live in a grass hut somewhere and no doubt your computer runs on hot gasses emanating from various orifices found on your body. I’m also going to guess that your clothing and bedding are woven from locally (sustainable) grown fibers.

This is the offensive we need need to adopt, in addition to showing the flaws in the cultists position. The two thrusts form a pincer movement.

There are other points that need to be introduced though:

1. Plants release Oxygen as a by-product of extracting the carbon from CO2, this represents the major source of the Oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to survive; and

2. Plants are the basis for the entire food-chain, with the possible exception of some fungi.

Mammals (including Humans, Pandas, Polar Bears, and Whales) actually live in a symbiotic relationship with plants, either directly, or indirectly. We must do all we can to strengthen that relationship, even if it ultimately means increasing the average global temperature (which of course, it does not)

From a propaganda viewpoint, the alarmists have been pushing a negative message of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) through the MSM. FUD messages are strong because they impinge on some of our basic survival instincts.

The rationalists have been pointing out the flaws in the alarmist message, and although at one level people will see and accept the intellectual arguments, those arguments do nothing to address the instinctive response of, “well that may all be true, but I am still going to play it safe, just in case” – our rationality does not remove the FUD. (You can see this in action in some of the responses that Jo received on the Drum).

Emphasising that ALL life (some algae excluded) ultimately relies on CO2, and that more CO2 is actually safer, does start to wear away the FUD message.

Not only that, we have empirical evidence, as per your video clip.

Also this post will strike a chord with the grey-hairs, who will remember doing the same experiment at school, back in the days when schools actually demonstrated science by having the kids do their own real experiments.

Now let’s look at all the alarmists empirical evidence to the contrary …

“If the Greens wanted to green the world, the single fastest way to do it, is to raise carbon dioxide levels. O’ the irony!”

Actually that’s not the greeny goal at all – not so much as an increased greening of the world as a reduction of the number of inappropriate peoples, according to their specifications. Their rationale seems either increasing CO2 to feed the exploding human population, or, better still, reducing the population, hence no need to increase CO2.

Too bad so many people are actually so far removed from nature that they actually believe CO2 is pollution. Submariners inhale how many ppm while at sea? I think people should check out how many thousands ppm people can handle.

Also, as you point out very clearly… CO2 = life. The more of it, the better–not including extreme levels that have never existed on this planet before. Humans are 20% carbon… hmmm… wonder how we get all that carbon (or will get what we need if the freaks and their 350 ppm cap want)?

More CO2 creates, naturally, more food, and more carbon sinks… larger, more abundant crops (when not used for food) hold the carbon and the earth balances itself. All things adapt and can adapt to minuscule changes; however, we must recognize what they are in truth before we make any decisions and humans that are profiting just don’t want that.

Why can’t this CO2 crap just die? Probably because of the steady indoctrination of the youths via gov propaganda. I look forward to the day when all these brainwashed masses wake up and realize that they have been duped, used, etc. If I were one of the former gov officials that played a part in this, I’d be hiding in a cave–but they probably have underground cities, to be sure. The gov just can’t be trusted… the ONLY purpose of the gov is to serve the people; it is a created fictional entity that could be dissolved, but what will THAT take?

Everyone needs to start at square one: We are human beings on a wondrous planet and we have a very limited life… why let a group of profiteers tell us how we can live, when those speaking are living much better? We shouldn’t, and I will not.

There are SO MANY factors, many of which have not been discovered by humans, that affect this planet, anyone believing in a model based on adjusted data when pertaining to the earth, has got to be very limited in their thinking–the perfect serf.

“When confronted with the specter of global warming, for example, many experiments have revealed that concomitant enrichment of the air with CO2 tends to increase the temperature at which plants function at their optimum, often making them even better suited to the warmer environment than they were to the cooler environment to which they were originally adapted. Under the most stressful of such conditions, in fact, extra CO2 sometimes is the deciding factor in determining whether a plant lives or dies.”

This information kills off any argument from the alarmists about increased stress on plant life as a result of temperature, etc.

One has to wonder therefore, how the IPCC can claim that increased CO2 and temperature is supposed to threaten life more. Perhaps they forgot to investigate the effect on plants? Bitter irony, since plants rely on both in order to survive.

Just a little trivia. GE is the big winner whiner in sellin g stuff to medical and electrical. companies.
GE purchased Ohio brand anesthesia machines. When you have a general anesthetic for surgery, they assist in breathing and give you gases. On a machine there is an actual tank for CO2. It can be blended in with O2, NO2 and halothane or cyclopropane. Just so you can worry, they give you CO2 to keep you breathing.
Having a certain level of CO2 in your suspended blood gases determines your pulse and respiration rate.

1270ppm is approximately 280% more than 450ppm. It would be foolish to say 282.2222222% That is the sort of blarney that the AGW camp resorts to when they talk about temperature changes of 0.166 degrees per decade, when the measurements are made to half degree accuracy. To a statistician that kind of false precision is simply abhorrent and misleading.

Grant @16 No I am not kidding and I will ignore your connecting my question with AGW supporters. Read any of my posts anywhere and you will not I REPEAT WILL NOT find me supporting AGW. EVER! (I guess I didn’t ignore your stupid comment). Pick a fight with the other team would you?
I did the math exactly as Janama did and come up with exactly the same numbers. Get your calculator and try it.

Sorry about the comment appearing to lump you in with the AGW lot. What I was trying to point out is that their is not a lot of difference between 1260 and 1270ppm. And the researchers are correct to round their calculation to +/- 10%. Not to do so would imply a level of precision not permitted by the measurements.

If carbon dioxide is the cause of all our problems why do we only see levels stated for some obscure island in the middle of the Pacific, 3397m high and next to a volcano.

Why don’t we have organisations like BOM giving us daily CO2 reports along with our temperature, rain, UV reports. As CO2 is more dense than air, levels should be higher closer to ground level, in cities etc. CO2 should be at greater concentrations in the northern hemisphere. Are they and by how much?

At an aquaculture facility I visited inlet water was artesian with a CO2 level of 50 – 60ppm. It was stripped of CO2 by blowing air through cascading water in degassing towers to reduce the level to 10 – 11ppm. By comparison rain and river water had CO2 levels of 0 – 1ppm. If the alarmists were right I would have expected higher readings so I don’t understand how ice cores can produce readings as high as those published.

In considering the amount of money that has been given to the global warming/Carbon Dioxide religion and now, or soon, a new carbon monetary system administered by those who brought us the last financial collapse, I don’t think they will be relinquishing their grip easily.

The teaching of the religion in schools and the fact that many jobs are only open to disciples will only strengthen their hold. When does education become indoctrination?

It seems that when questioned about various aspects their response is reminiscent of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s “don’t you worry about that”

If water vapour is considerably worse as a green house gas than CO2 then a rise in temperature should cause an increase in water vapour which will give rise to accelerating increases in temperature regardless of whether CO2 started the process. It seems reminiscent of the demonstrations to explain the nuclear fission reaction and once the reaction has started there is only one end point.

There is no doubt that we should continue to improve our existing processes but I don’t believe that what the various CO2 taxing systems proposed are going to achieve anything other than subsidise the religion further and fund more perpetual motion schemes.

The numbers might be within an acceptable percent and indeed it is a small difference. On the other hand it is very simple math and is the kind of thing that Warmers pick on all the time. They’ll say we can’t even get 450 x 2.8 right. Now you could suggest that in fact the experiment was at 1270 in which case I’d say 182% more is close enough. You might also say “more than 180% more” or some other such comment. You might say I am quibbling but I’m on this team. (you know the other team won’t be this nice.)

“Maybe I ought to file a brief with the United Nations, or the World Court, or The Hague…”

The Hague for sure. We could have a group action on behalf of every family that lost someone due to malnutrition, resultant from higher than needed food and energy prices. Finding out that the theory of abiotic oil really does mean the potential for an abundant hydro-carbon future makes the prospect of this idyllic high-CO2 world more plausible. Imagine throwing that potential away? These people are heartless.

It’s a pity that we can’t restore the atmospheric conditions — let’s say — 40 million years ago. Maybe 2000 ppm is a bit too much for some modern species …including ourselves? 20 million years ago with 1000 ppm would be fine?

It’s very interesting to see things brought back into perspective. This should be highlighted in schools and the media. CO2 going from about 400 ppm to 800 ppm is not a problem in anyone’s language. Yet we have the conspiracy being peddled it will bring disaster to life and limb if it does. Isn’t it time to charge AGW alarmists with a crime or two against humanity?

I though it was only that foolish lot in the USA (EPA) that had declared CO2 a pollutant! The rest of the clowns just say it causes sea level rise, glacier melt, desertification of the rain forest, no snow on Kilimanjaro, loss of Arctic/Antarctic ice, Polar bears drowning, lemmings going blind (I blame the old platform game for that one! Thanks for reminding me of it Ba Humbug!), Kangaroos with one short leg going round in circles……etc etc.

Sorry, got carried away waiting for the trolls to come back after the pasting they got from co2isnotevil,Mike S, etc on the last article. Nice to see our side use sensible argument and reason rather than the insults they, as usual, used. Says a lot for Jo’s handbook (Advert over).

HAMLET: Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain convocation of politic worms are e’en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that’s the end.

KING CLAUDIUS: Alas, alas!

HAMLET: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING CLAUDIUS: What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET: Nothing but to show you how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

I guess when Pachauris’ time is up, he will go thru the guts of a billion beggars. What a lovely thought lol

THE PRIMAL SEED
Shortly after the discontinuity that launched the universe (if, indeed, that is the way it happened) the elementary particles came together to form the first atoms – hydrogen, helium, lithium; later beryllium, boron – and then something quite unique, an element of such startling properties that the ultimate outcome was the profound and mysterious development to which we designate the abstraction of “life”. Furthermore that development reached such a state of advancement that it could understand the nature of that which gave it being and then the perversity to vilify it as the root of all evil.

SHAPE SHIFTER
Even as a pure chemical, carbon exhibits a multiple personality that is quite exceptional in its variety. The soft powder that is lamp black, the amorphous stick of charcoal with which Leonardo first sketched the outline of a mysterious woman, the hardest of sparkling crystals nestling between the soft breasts of other women who changed history, yet which has been crucial to high technology, the smooth flaky centre of the draughtsman’s pencil that also lubricated the workings of his mechanical designs and the new nanostructures of unimaginable possibilities (fullerines, buckyballs, nanotubes etc.) are all chemically identical.

THE PROMISCUOUS BONDER. . . (love the term…BH)
But the diversity of the pure element is as nothing compared with the infinite variety of its combination with others: for the structure of the carbon atom lends itself to a mechanism of
unconstrained potential known as the covalent bond. The atom has four electrons in its incomplete outer shell and exhibits a remarkable tendency to share these with other atoms. It forms chains, both straight and branched, and rings that yield combinations of unlimited length and complexity. Compounds of the same chemical formula can have quite different structures and properties (isomers). Onto the basic carbon skeletons many other atoms can be attached by covalent bonding to create an infinite variety of compounds with an awesome range of properties.

THE FOUNDING FIRE OF CIVILISATION
The discovery of fire was the spark that ignited the explosive growth of civilisation. Man was surrounded by carbon, initially in the form of wood, and oxidation of carbon is highly exothermic; so the consequent liberation of energy and its subsequent control gradually made man the master of his environment rather than its slave. Up to that point technology had been based on flint knapping (to which some modern religionists seek to return)……it was the discoveries from the accidental exposure of various materials to fire that began the great technological ascent of man.

All the mention of numbers and precision etc got me to thinking. To someone who is about to buy a laser printer 450ppm sounds pretty unbelievable. But when you are talking about CO2 450ppm is only 0.045% of the atmosphere. An increase to 1260ppm increases the concentration to 0.126%. When that is expressed as an increase of 182.22% it sounds more alarming. I think the general public is being duped by the use of numbers, the careful use of units of measure and mixing of percentages with absolute values. Oh! and then there is the deceit of using “anomalies”.

To me one of the astounding things is the alarm that is generated when the change in temperature has been so small – within the margin of error of measurement over a decade and minuscule in the range of variation within a day.

You are so right. I think the problem is that so many people are completely isolated from the “natural” environment and don’t know any different. They romanticise about glaciers and fret about them melting, whereas if they lived in this environment they would realise that the glacier is a destructive force, a desert and a wilderness where crops cannot grow, where farms are swallowed up and buried. The alarmists / warm-mongerers simply show pictures of glaciers calving in Antartica and tell a scarey story about it and – there you have it – mass fear! What the alarmists don’t tell you is that glaciers have been calving for billions of years, that global temperatures are all over the shop throughout history (whatever the CO2 did), and that the CO2 we make is feeding the plants that are the foundations of life on earth.

The statement: “Likewise, hydroponics is only possible because the plant building blocks come from aerial fertilizer” is theatrical nonsense. Hydroponically-grown plants grow because nutrients (N,P,K and trace elements) and water are supplied to the roots and because photosynthesis occurs – just like soil-grown plants. Some commercial hydroponics farmers do enrich their greenhouse’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide to increase yields, but so do soil farmers.

One of the rights that trees have, according to the site, is the right to not be polluted. Given the push to define CO2 as a pollutant there is an obvious irony here. I notice also that included in the list of rights is not the right to access to sufficient nutrients to thrive (which for trees, of course, would be more CO2). If trees actually had voices, I wonder what they would have to say about the anti-CO2 crowd in general and Ms Higgins in particular.

Spartacus #43.
Or as Bernard Wooley said ..’Oh, that’s another of those irregular verbs, isn’t it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he’s been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act’.

Just had a read of it and apart from a concatenation of non sequiturs, the goals of that organisation are feel-good, airey-fairy motherhood statements; she manages to coexist with us?

I would not, however, dismiss trees as inanimate vegetables since there are some controlled experiments that trees respond to human interaction, partially discussed in Michael Talbot’s book “The Holographic Universe” in which he summarises (circa 1990) the state of some areas of science.

Empathy with flora by some people, usually intellectualised as a “green thumb” is regarded as a fringe effect. Empathy with animals is another unusual characteristic some individuals have, and most not.

(I recall watching the adventures of a young French girl in western Africa who could “communicate” with African elephants; on SBS I think, and about a decade ago, or more. Seems young children are able to communicate with other animals but lose that ability when confronting their parents with their youthful eperiences of “talking to the animals”, usually by their parents dismissing those youthful interactions as baloney).

I personally relate to David Bohm’s perspective having been, during my youth, introduced to the thought provoking ideas of Jiddu Krishnamurti; since then I have moved on and if you need a basis to understand me, then there is little difference between in thought between me and U.G. Krishnamurti.

What I wish someone had done, and if someone has please point me in the right direction, is an experiment to isolate the impact of CO2 on tree-ring growth. Would one not expect tree ring-growth to be proportional to CO2 levels as well? The whole notion of dendrochronology as a proxy for temperature is something I am not just sceptical but suspicious of in the context of the AGW debate for this very reason.

So if I may ask of the learned readers of this blog a favour, could anyone point me in the direction of a good run-down on dendrochronology as a proxy for temp, and perhaps also to somewhere that can help me to understand the extent to which the global temp series rely on tree-ring temp data?

Even worse, Grant, ‘anomalies’ are based on the difference between a monthly “temperature average” and the running average of the previous 30 years of corresponding monthly “temperature averages”, whereas anyone who has studied Thermodynamics will know that

The ‘average’ of two independent temperatures is NOT A TEMPERATURE; it’s a STATISTIC.

Want Proof?

PROOF: Sit an ‘ice block’ and a ‘freshly boiled water kettle’ apart on a bench top and measure their respective temperatures: the first is at about 0°C, the other about 100°C.

You certainly can add 0 to 100 and then divide by 2 (the number of measured temperatures) to reach an average of ‘50’ (a statistic), but there is nothing in the room at a temperature of 50°C. That number is not “a temperature” at all.

Even if you throw the iceblock into the kettle and wait for 30 seconds, the combination (at equilibrium) will still not be at 50°C [unless, from the infinite number of possible sizes for the ice block, you accidentally choose the only one that will result in a 50°C final temperature; all other possible sizes will NOT result in a 50°C final temperature.]

CONCLUSION: The concept of an “average temperature” being able to cause anything is gobble-de-gook, double-speak, or charlatanism – but definitely NOT scientific. I refuse to believe that subtracting one statistic from another staistic can possibly cause a glacier to melt (or anything else)?

Hi all,
I’m a sceptic too but you need to be a bit careful about claims that CO2 is the most important plant nutrient. Frequently in nature it is light , water & nitrogen that are limiting too, not just CO2. In a greenhouse in nice moist compost and plenty of light then, yes, CO2 will boost a plant’s growth rate significantly.
For me, one of the key pieces of evidence that we’re living on a planet with CO2 levels currently at the very bottom of the normal range is that a whole new group of plants evolved several million years ago specifically to cope with it. They developed a new method of photosynthesis called C4 which permits greater water efficiency and the ability to photosynthesise in higher temperatures. Just do a Wiki on ‘C4 photosynthesis’. An even more robust adaption called CAM was evolved by plants like cacti which we now see living in deserts. But even these can’t grow in the Sahara – no water, no nitrogen, no nothing.
Despite a probable increase in net biomass with increasing CO2 concentrations, there could be a loss in plant biodiversity as the big greedy plants with a high relative growth rate totally out-compete everything else. This happens anywhere you add loads of any nutrients of any sort to an ecosystem and upset the delicate battle for resources. The analogy is similar to acid soils (lots of nutrients) which are generally species poor and dominated by big greedy hooligan-like plants vs alkaline soils (nutrient poor) but very species rich.

As an old and, in many ways, unrepentant hippie, I am not, in fact, entirely unsympathetic to Ms Higgins’ basic philosophy. My idealistic wishful thinking, however, has always been tempered and bounded by realism. I rather doubt that this is the case with Ms Higgins, and, in particular, I doubt that she knows much, if anything, about plant biology, which is why I pointed out the potential contradictions on her website.

I do not, as you suggest, “dismiss trees as inanimate vegetables”, because, while they are certainly vegetable, they are also certainly animate (i.e., living organisms). Can humans communicate with plants at any level? I have an open mind on the subject (somewhat restricted by the knowledge that plants do not appear to have a centralized brain where any kind of consciousness could be seated), but I would point out that serious discussions of the possibility first began following the publication in 1973 of Lyall Watson’s classic “Supernature”. The point is that if plants are granted equal rights with animals and humans, and remembering that animals are already granted equal rights with humans by ethical vegetarians, then what are we going to be left to eat – which we have to do to stay alive? (Synthetic food is a cheat answer, since this could only be a possibility thanks to our science and technology, which is the result of thousands of years of cultural development that would not have been possible without our species killing and eating other species – plants and animals.)

BTW, David Bohm was also rather late with the holographic universe idea. He was beaten to it by Itzahk Bentov in his amazing 1977 work “Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness”.

Shucks Mattb, I’m crushed that you are not impressed.
I didn’t know everyone realizes that the EPA is being outrageously dishonest when it says “CO2 is pollution”?
When our Government pushes a scheme called the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”, don’t you think it matters that it’s scientifically equivalent in branding to “Oxygen Pollution Reduction Scheme”? You don’t think it exposes them as being scientifically dishonest?

“”We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention,” said Lord Oxburgh, an academic and former head of Shell, who conducted the inquiry.

However, there was no evidence of “deliberate scientific malpractice”, meaning the conclusion that mankind is causing global warming is probably correct. ”

Pat @ #50
“The ‘average’ of two independent temperatures is NOT A TEMPERATURE; it’s a STATISTIC.”

As I have pointed out here and elsewhere if you use maximum and minimum values for a 24 hour period to calculate the “average” for the day (as would have been the case with the original weather stations) and then later use multiple readings from throughout the day e.g. every 5 minutes, as weather stations automate, then you have two completely different and incomparable statistics.

Some of the “detected warming” could be due to the skewing of data from a change in the frequency of measurements. All Averages are not equal.

Mark D @#46
“The whole “scary” Co2 theme would have a harder time gaining traction if the masses saw such small numbers.”

Not just the % of CO2 in the atmosphere, but then you have have the really big numbers of tonnes of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere in a year. These big scarey numbers are not put in context by comparison with the even bigger, scarier output of non-anthropogenic CO2 e.g. natural forest decomposition, oceans releasing CO2. These sources are orders of magnitude greater than human sources, but the alarmists are very careful to keep the numbers as far from each other as possible.

On land – plants
(Where’s the “dessertification” that was taught many years ago for us all to fear to be happening…).In the oceans – plankton
(What ocean “acidification” ? ).

Both are the bases of the respective foodchains.
Both are far more abundent with increased levels of atmospheric CO2.

twawki Post 8
April 14th, 2010 at 7:34 amWhy is it every time we listen to nature it proves the greens wrong!

Spot on.
May I venture an answer, because the greens are about politically enforcing an anti-human (eugenics based) ideology.

Greens are both anti-human and anti-plant, that is what will happen, less life on the planet – PERIOD.
If their attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are successful.
(Obviously they wil not suceed, nature’s sinks and sources WILL determine what happens, not man.)

Baa Humbug. I’m just constantly baffled by that particular scene and the one where he stabs Polonius. Like I identify with the Prince all the way through and then we have those two scenes and he completely loses me.

This is not a small thing. I find it all a bit disturbing. Thats why I can never quite embrace that play. So King Lear would be my favourite. But you watch it with great intensity you are going to be depressed for about three weeks afterward. Like when I watched the Deerhunter as a kid. I was just so depressed. But King Lear is the best thing I’ve ever seen but I don’t know whether I could go through with it ever again. Because watching Bambi as a five year old is bad enough. Or Deerhunter when you are around 10. But King Lear is far far more shocking then either of these.

But you can watch MacBeth one day and Scarface the next and be none the worse for wear.

Ms Wong has been at it again spreading alarmism including temperature and sea rise estimations from CSIRO and BOM; she didn’t mention the IPCC report this time http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/wong/2010/major-speeches/April/sp20100412.aspx
I’m intending to send her a pithy letter and a copy of Dr Tim Ball’s essay http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12420
Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating Consequences
Dr Ball summarises the result of wind and solar power in some developing countries; he says ‘An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness and further economic decay.’ “Carbon pollution” is a result of politicizing climate. CO2 became carbon when “carbon credits” emerged from the Kyoto Accord. Its use expanded when evidence showed CO2 was not causing, nor ever caused, warming or climate change. It is incorrect. … A scientific definition of carbon is: the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal. The objective is to link CO2 with coal because it is seen as the devil itself.
A scientific definition of carbon dioxide (CO2) is; a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. So basically carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas. They claim CO2 can slow heat escape from the atmosphere and an increase from human activity causes warming. It has not happened at any time and is not happening now. Carbon occurs as particles of soot in the atmosphere causing cooling by blocking sunlight. I expect them to blame soot for failure of their warming predictions.’ Ms Wong says also ‘ If we reduce our carbon pollution and the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence turns out to be wrong, what damage has been done? We would have cleaned up our economy, created new opportunities, protected our environment and improved the quality of our lives. ‘
Well the Govt and the Banks and possibly some undeveloped countries will be enriched but the rest of us will be poorer; is this what the alarmists really want

”We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention,” said Lord Oxburgh, an academic and former head of Shell, who conducted the inquiry”

So, CRU. The world leading climatic research unit providing the irrefutable proof of man made global warming was disorganised. No problem, it’s not like their output is being used for anything important now, is it? It’s not like they were seeking public attention either, and Jones didn’t sign off many of his emails with the exotic destination he was about to jet off to.

But who was supervising this unit’s work? Surely the UEA’s executive should have realised the implications of disorganised work, before we learned just how disorganised they were via the leak. I’m sure they were happy with the research funding coming in, but seemed unwilling to invest any of that money in PR training, or worse, decent data management systems.

We humans are taught, via religion and msm/gov, that we are kings of our worlds, somehow above and beyond all other living entities… which is entire BS. WE are PART of this world and if prosecution, manipulation, FEAR, destruction would not have been part of our religions and our ‘history’(usually history taught is just nationalist socialist engineering) we could actually connect and people would be happy to be with nature.

ONLY believing that what science can verify is actually real, certainly cuts out [probably] most of what exists. Not to mention the fact that science is manipulated, controlled and ‘hidden’–yes, the ‘elite’ have access to many things you and I don’t and that is the way they like it. As an example: gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, and even wave-forms in general ALL existed BEFORE science could detect them and name them and the ancients did use them… sure, often they were attributed to gods, but nonetheless, they often noticed the effects.

Of course this AGW BS is a hoax, farce, etc., but we do have real pollution and NO ONE should profit via fear tactics… again, terrorists instill fear to promote their agenda, so what does that make gore, bama, and his ilk which all use doom/fear to profit?

Using 5% of the human brain leaves much room for improvement, although our society is actually de-evolving via the school system…

Yes, I believe in something more than this 3D physical world and the detectable world; do I believe it can be found in any man-made (or mann-made) dogmatic religion? Certainly not.

You touch on something that quite probably is true. Compulsory education with state input into the curricula seems to have resulted in an erosion of scientific literacy. I would not say it is part of a conspiracy but it is an aspect of the youth of today that is manipulated and exploited by those deceived by AGW.

Absolutely, however, in Australia I believe only 30% of the population live in rural areas? The rest are city slickers (meant
warmly) who know about pollution but little else about natural sciences. In Sydney they give a pollution level each day. Not just MV fumes, but pollen counts etc. However, where I live they are putting wood burners on notice. They reckon they cause lowering of IQ in children (including secondary smoke)
bronchitis etc. From reports and research in America? They paid
the UNE 180,000 to conduct a smoke hazard report. I read in the paper they said most of the wood burners were OK. Now the council
reckons they are not. They have to change to recycling air conditions, gas or oil? Bugger the expense of these, solar of course is available for hot water heating. With the claims electricity is going up 64% over three years, regional areas already pay more as the grid has to go further.

So – when people don’t know (or some don’t) milk comes in cartons,
but to avail this there is a methane polluter, eating grass to make it the Vegans are winning the race claiming methane is more dangerous than CO2. It’s getting crazier folks isn’t it.

Rural people are having a laugh but I must admit in my ignorance
when I moved to bush, I asked one stockman when would my calf get
its front teeth?????? Thinking that like horses who also eat grass, they needed them too. Didn’t know what a ruminant was? LOL,

Joe Spencer @ 72. My girlfriend of 43 years used to joke. We were
both married to pilots at one time, and she reckoned that at high
altitudes military pilots breath oxygen from masks, and she reckoned
it made them more alert of course, and it does, but also had a sobering effect once they stopped breathing it in the brains went
funny? That’s why they were often intolerable to live with once they came down to Earth.

Atomic hairdryer et al, you’ll enjoy this. Sent to me from Roger the
surf from New Zealand. However he added this was enough to change
his thoughts about AGW LOL. Printed recently by the Washington Post
but dated – wait for it 1922. Read it! No credits given for the author.

I might allow myself a little laugh if I could be certain that your article wasn’t just a hoax. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take Photoshop to hoax an image of text such as you have presented – merely a decent word-processor and pressing PrtSc. (I am not saying that it IS a hoax, merely that that is what the warmistas can claim.) Regards to you anyway.

This Icelandic volcano eruption, is causing people to think? After
the earthquake in China, the old gal is groaning. Where we live
in Oz, (Not Kansas either, I was asked once)we are surrounded by the ring of fire. It would seem from my archaeology studies, Japan
was not occupied much during the last ice age. It had many earthquakes and eruptions on it to encourage people?

“This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s,” says Mr. Lockwood. “I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all.”

Pat @ 50. Yes, but just to add to your comment, with elevation
the boiling point reduces (don’t ask me why?) So the theory that
water boils at 100 C, is correct at just above sea level, but at
1042 meters, where I live it boils at 97.5 C. Get my gist.

The study is rubbish. Out of the 5000+ studies its normal to get one or two errant studies wherein the researcher has tendentiously robbed the soil of fixed nitrogen. Other then that the studies as an whole speak with one voice.

Further to that high levels of CO2 tend to over time enrich the fixed nitrogen in the soil. No not because they turn normal plants into legumes. But rather because they spart off an increase in biological activity as such. Which eventually generates soil enrichment.

“”Most studies have looked at the effects of CO2 on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future,” said Field, co-author of the Science study. “We got exactly the same results when we applied CO2 alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.”

You’ve got to be a little bit smarter about this dopey. You read through a few paragraphs and they admitted that they lied or that the media did. The above proves that they doctored the results. And by their own admission.

These people are such liars and whores. They overheat the environment, reduce the water available for the plant, rob the soil of fixed nitrogen and then they tell us that CO2 doesn’t make plants grow better. I’d be sacking people for this. This sort of lying is just unacceptable.

“Nature cannot ‘self-correct’ entirely against climate change, and the scientific community has been both overestimating the impact of plants and underestimating the impact of soil microorganisms in how they absorb CO2 and ultimately impact global warming,” said Bruce Hungate, director of the Center for Ecosystem Science and Society at NAU and lead author on the study.